Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook bought four properties surrounding his house in Palo Alto, California. He reportedly spent a cool $30 million buying four properties surrounding his house, and is leasing them back to their former owners. Irony of ironies, he did it to protect his privacy.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, except Zuckerberg presides over the greatest intentional invasion of our privacy ever devised.
Actually, maybe that’s the NSA, but nonetheless, Facebook is built on the idea that our digital lives should be public. Facebook’s default mode is to expose as much information about you as possible. All your pictures, vacation plans, school graduation ceremonies and what products and services you “like,” which are mined by commercial interests to sell products and services back to you.
I discovered the dangers of unfettered social sharing while researching my upcoming book on Jonathan Ive and Apple’s industrial design department. Digging around in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, I found a LOT of personal information about Apple’s designers. Stuff they no doubt want to keep on the down low. These are people who are intensely private. They have very low public profiles. They intentionally keep their identities and jobs out of the public eye.
This is partly because of Apple’s draconian secrecy policies and partly to shield them from headhunters. But there’s also a large measure of just keeping their lives private. Apple’s twenty or so industrial designers are somewhat public figures, thanks to their amazing success as Apple’s primary innovators and the growing international fame of their boss. They don’t want their lives examined by a nosey snoop like me.
Some keep their Instagram feeds private, but a surprising number don’t. Some of the designers have registered Facebook and Instagram accounts under nicknames or pseudonyms. They weren’t too hard to find with a bit old-fashioned, shoe-leather reporting.
Looking through their pictures — cyberstalking them — you can see their vacations, their houses, their cars and kids and spouses. You see weddings and nights out at clubs. Skiing adventures by helicopter and surfing excursions. Trips to London or Italy’s Amalfi coast. It’s all very enviable. In fact, the pictures look just like the staged photos Apple uses on the computers at the Apple Stores. They are the real version of the picture-perfect California life.
I won’t reveal the pictures or the Instagram feeds. Although their pictures and feeds are very much out there in public, the designers are entitled to their privacy. They’ve made attempts to keep them private — or semiprivate — and I won’t violate that. There’s no reason they should be forced to hide their feeds. There’s little harm in exposing your pictures to the public. It’s easy for friends and family — or the public even — to get a glimpse of your life and activities. There’s nothing very serious that’s exposed. I could figure out exactly where they live, I suppose, but there are probably easier ways.
But it shows that we should all be aware of what we’re exposing online. My kids are quite savvy about privacy. They are careful about what they post to Facebook and tend to keep pictures with their faces offline.
In 2011, even Zuckerberg’s puppy got into the act. Beast, a white mop of a sheepdog, has his own page on Facebook. He can be seen waiting patiently for steak bits, blending in with a shaggy rug and rushing about the yard. His “mom” (Zuck’s wife Priscilla) is often incidentally pictured – maybe over a morning cuddle or carrying him down the stairs. Since August, though, the four-legged wonder has not posted a single status update. And can you blame him? Even a dog with 1.6 million likes needs a little privacy once in awhile.